Benchmark: Switch vs Map object

Tests:

Switch
const input = 10; switch(input) { case 1: return true; case 2: return true; case 3: return true; case 4: return true; case 5: return true; case 6: return true; case 7: return true; case 8: return true; case 9: return true; case 10: return true; default: return 11; }
Map
const input = 10; const mapping = new Map([ [0, true], [1, true], [2, true], [3, true], [4, true], [5, true], [6, true], [7, true], [8, true], [9, true], [10, true], ]); const foo = mapping.get(10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 141 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	218132432.0 Ops/sec
Map	4278656.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using a `switch` statement versus using the `Map.get()` method to retrieve values from an array.

**Options Being Compared**

1. **Switch Statement**: This approach uses a `switch` statement with multiple cases to determine which value to return based on the input.
2. **Map.get() Method**: This approach uses a `Map` data structure to store key-value pairs and retrieves the value associated with a given key using the `get()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Switch Statement**:
	* Pros: Can be more readable and easier to maintain for simple cases, as it allows explicit branching based on values.
	* Cons: Can become cumbersome and hard to read for large numbers of cases, leading to performance issues due to the overhead of branch prediction.
2. **Map.get() Method**:
	* Pros: Offers fast lookups with an average time complexity of O(1), making it suitable for large datasets or high-performance applications.
	* Cons: Requires additional memory allocation and may incur a slight performance penalty compared to inline `switch` statements.

**Library and Purpose**

In the provided benchmark, the `Map` library is used to store key-value pairs. The `Map.get()` method retrieves the value associated with a given key by performing a hash lookup.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Readability**: If code readability is more important than performance, using `switch` statements might be a better choice.
* **Scalability**: For large datasets or high-performance applications, using `Map.get()` method can provide faster lookups and better scalability.
* **Memory Usage**: Be mindful of memory usage, especially if working with large datasets. Using `Map` data structures may lead to increased memory allocation.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to consider for this benchmark include:

1. **Array Indexing**: Instead of using a `switch` statement or `Map`, you could use array indexing to directly access the desired value.
2. **Object Lookups**: Similar to `Map.get()`, object lookups can provide fast key-value retrievals using bracket notation (e.g., `obj[key]`).
3. **Function Calls**: Instead of using a `switch` statement, you could define separate functions for each case and call them dynamically using function references.

However, these alternatives may not offer the same level of performance as `Map.get()` method or inline `switch` statements in this specific benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Map object (version: 0)

Switch statements vs Map.get

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Map

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):